DOCSLIB.ORG

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 79235 C. M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 79235 C. M OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 79235 c. M. H'fdTY CLLlO; ', L INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER 7~~\ $C64L, Y AV> j2-iyg~ RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 72727 C.M.S., WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE CITY OF OAKLAND'S COMMUNITY POLICING POLICY, TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WHEREAS, the people of Oakland require that their municipal government provide police services in the manner calculated to best insure public safety; and WHEREAS, for the last two decades cities and police departments across the Untied States have adopted strategies to reduce reliance on 911-response policing and instead utilize approaches known as "Community Oriented Policing," "Problem Oriented Policing," or "Community Policing;" and WHEREAS, the experience of the police departments which have adopted community policing strategy demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach in both reducing crime levels and increasing public sense of safety; and WHEREAS, the Oakland Police Department has been a pioneer in the development and utilization of community policing strategies through such programs as Beat Health, Neighborhood Watch, and Home Alert; and assuming a leadership role in comparable efforts by the Oakland Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1996 the City Council of the City of Oakland passed Resolution No. 72727 to implement the community policing program in the City of Oakland and this Resolution was subsequently amended by Resolution No. 73185 C.M.S on December 17, 1996 and by Resolution No. 73916 C.M.S. on November 4, 1997; and WHEREAS, community policing creates a working partnership between the community and the police to analyze neighborhood problems, set priorities, develop strategies, and work together to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, community policing focuses on issues of ongoing public concern rather than specific incidents as reported; and WHEREAS, community policing employs a comprehensive City inter-departmental approach to solving neighborhood problems; and WHEREAS, community policing assists in the empowerment of neighborhoods by relying on the organization of people in our communities to identify problems, prioritize concerns, and develop solutions which are implemented through the cooperation and collaboration of neighborhood residents, public employees, and public officials; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Oakland hereby adopts the following policies for the implementation and institutionalization of community policing: Section 1 - Title and Philosophy 1.1 This program shall be known as the Community Policing Program of the City of Oakland. 1.2 Four principles govern the Community Policing Program of the City of Oakland: 1.2.1 Its purpose is to reduce crime, enhance public safety, and to improve quality of life. 1.2.2 It is a peer level partnership between the community, the Police Department, and other city agencies. 1.2.3 In contrast to the 911 emergency response system, it addresses long term, chroni" c prob"eml s using proactive, collaborative problem solving methods. 1.2.4 It fosters a geographically based crime prevention effort on three levels: at the block level, at the neighborhood level, and at the citywide level. 1.3 Community policing is hereby reaffirmed as the public safety policy and philosophy of the City of Oakland. Section 2 - Police Beats 2.1 Police beats shall conform as nearly as possible to the natural boundaries of neighborhoods and communities in the City of Oakland, taking into account historical neighborhood boundaries, natural boundaries such as streams, artificial boundaries such as major thoroughfares and highways, shopping and commercial districts, and public school attendance areas. The beat boundaries shall be reviewed from time to time to accommodate the natural evolution of population and neighborhood boundaries. 2.2 Each police beat should, to the extent feasible, contain between 5,000 and 7,000 residents. Section 3: Block Level Organization 3.1 Home Alert is the block-level component of the City's Community Policing Program. 3.2 Home Alert will recruit and engage residents in crime prevention and problem solving through block-level organizing. 3.3 Home Alert Groups shall, to the extent safe and reasonable, strive to include representatives from each address on the block. 3.4 City Staff will partner with Home Alert Groups regarding issues of block health and safety. Home Alert Groups shall cooperate actively with police officers and other city staff and interested individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life on their blocks. 3.5 Once a year there will be a citywide meeting of Home Alert captains. 3.6 The Home Alert Coordinator will oversee the Home Alert Program and shall be a non- sworn employee of the police department working under the supervision of the Neighborhood Services Manager. 3.7 The Neighborhood Services Manager will determine the specific duties of the Home Alert Coordinator. 3.8 The city shall encourage Home Alert captains and members to participate in neighborhood-level and citywide-level components of the Community Policing Program. Section 4 - Neighborhood Level Organization 4.1 Neighborhood Councils (also known as Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils or NCPCs) are the neighborhood-level component of the City's Community Policing Program. 4.2 A Neighborhood Council shall be established and maintained in each police beat. 4.3 Neighborhood Councils shall strive to include representatives of a variety of organizations sensitive to community needs and interests, such as, but not limited to, community organizations, service groups, Home Alert groups, church organizations, youth groups, labor unions, merchant associations, school parent-teacher organizations, as well as interested members of the community. 4.4 Neighborhood Councils shall meet regularly, as determined by their members, but at least quarterly. 4.5 Meetings of Neighborhood Councils shall be publicly announced. 4.6 All meetings of Neighborhood Councils shall be public. The Neighborhood Services Coordinators and Community Policing Officers shall be directed to attend meetings of the Neighborhood Council. Other city staff shall attend Neighborhood Council meetings when appropriate or as requested. 4.7 Meetings of Neighborhood Councils shall be democratically run, but need not conform strictly to Robert's Rules of Order. 4.8 The Neighborhood Council will, to the extent safe and reasonable, provide notice of meetings to all addresses in the police beat at least once each year. 4.9 Each Neighborhood Council shall adopt written bylaws to govern the conduct of its meetings. These bylaws must include a requirement for annual elections of any leadership positions, whether they are called officers, steering committee members, or other names. These bylaws shall be available to all residents of the police beat. 4.10 Neighborhood Service Coordinators, police officers assigned to the beat, and employees of other city departments shall meet with Neighborhood Councils to identify neighborhood concerns regarding issues of public health and safety, establish priorities for law enforcement efforts, and develop strategies to resolve public health, safety, neighborhood improvement and revitalization, and other concerns. 4.11 Neighborhood Councils shall cooperate actively with police officers and other public employees and interested individuals and organizations to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, through such activities as involvement in litter and graffiti abatement, community patrols, providing supervision for youth recreation activities, monitoring problems at liquor stores, and other actions. 4.12 Neighborhood Councils shall be encouraged to establish a community center in each police beat in order to provide a regular place for their meetings and activities, a location for positive interaction between residents and police officers, and a center for the provision of activities and services to residents of that police beat. To the extent possible public facilities, which can accommodate a large range of activities, such as youth recreation and classes for adults, shall be utilized as community centers. The City Council shall solicit the cooperation of the Oakland Unified School District in making school facilities available for Neighborhood Council meetings without charge to the community. 4.13 An organized group may represent itself as a Neighborhood Council, and therefore representative of the citizens of that beat, only if that group is in compliance with Section 4 of this Resolution and has passed certification by the Community Policing Advisory Board (CPAB). Section 5 - Citywide Organization 5.1 The Community Policing Advisory Board (CPAB) and the Home Alert Steering Committee (HASC) are citywide advocates for community policing, and help bring the block and neighborhood groups together as a citywide voice for community policing. 5.2 The Community Policing Advisory Board (CPAB) shall be comprised of the following fifteen appointees: 5.2.1 Three members appointed by the Mayor. 5.2.2 One Member appointed by each Councilperson (total of eight appointees). 5.2.3 One Member appointed by the Board of Commissioners of the Oakland Housing Authority 5.2.4 One member appointed by the Board of Trustees of the Oakland Unified School District. 5.2.5 Two members appointed by the Oakland Home Alert Steering Committee. 5.3 The Community Policing Advisory Board shall oversee, monitor, and report at least annually on the implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CITY of OAKLAND PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION One Frank Ogawa Plaza (City Hall) Special Commission Meeting Monday, July 31, 2017 Hearing Room 1 6:30 P.M
    CITY OF OAKLAND PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION One Frank Ogawa Plaza (City Hall) Special Commission Meeting Monday, July 31, 2017 Hearing Room 1 6:30 p.m. Commissioners: Marc Pilotin (Chair), Krisida Nishioka (Vice-Chair), Lisa Crowfoot, Dana King, Gail Kong, Jodie Smith, and Jonathan Stein Commission Staff: Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director; Milad Dalju, Deputy Director and Chief of Enforcement; Suzanne Doran, Lead Analyst – Civic Technology and Engagement; Jelani Killings, Ethics Analyst; Ana Lara-Franco, Commission Assistant; Simon Russell, Investigator City Attorney Staff: Trish Hynes, Deputy City Attorney SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum. 2. Staff and Commission Announcements. 3. Open Forum. CONSENT ITEMS1 4. Approval of Commission Meeting Draft Minutes. a. June 5, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes (Attachment 1 – Minutes) ACTION ITEMS 5. In the Matter of Lynette Gibson McElhaney (Case No. 15-07). Staff presents a report summarizing evidence that Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney committed the following violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act: 1) solicited and accepted gifts valued at more than $50 from a source she knew, or had reason to know, was a restricted source, in violation of Section 2.25.060(C) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act; 2) made a governmental decision in which she had a disqualifying financial interest in violation of Section 2.25.040(A) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act, and; 3) failed to disclose the gifts she received from the restricted source on her annual statement of economic interests in violation of Section 2.25.040(B) of the Oakland Government Ethics Act. Staff recommends that the Commission refer this matter to an administrative hearing before a single Commissioner.
    [Show full text]
  • Find out If Your City Councilmember and OUSD Board Member Have Changed As Part of Oakland's Recent Redistricting. Your City C
    City of Oakland Presorted 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza First Class Mail Find out if your City Councilmember and OUSD Board Member Suite 3315 US Postage CITY OF OAKLAND Oakland, CA 94612 PAID Have Changed as Part of Oakland’s Recent Redistricting. Oakland, CA Permit No.2508 Every 10 years the City of Oakland reviews and revises City Council District boundaries, as mandated by the City Charter. The purpose of this Redistricting process is to equalize each district’s population according to U.S. Census OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING data. New City electoral district boundaries are drawn to address population changes over the past decade. Important information that may affect you… The Oakland City Council Districts also serve as the electoral districts for the Governing Board of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), commonly called the Board of Education. Any changes made to the Council Districts also change the boundaries for the areas represented by the elected members of the Board of Education. Look inside for changes to Electoral boundary changes do not impact school enrollment choices. City Councilmembers represent the interest City Council Districts. of the residents of their respective districts During the 2013 Redistricting process, the City of Oakland: when making city policy, giving general policy District changes may affect n Complied with the Federal Voting Rights Act; direction, voting on ordinances and resolutions electoral districts, n Balanced district populations; and adopting the City’s biennial budget. but do not affect school n Preserved communities of interest; To find out who represents you on the enrollment choices. n Followed visible natural and man-made geographical Oakland City Council, please use the City’s and topographical features; and online Council District Locator Tool at n Avoided displacing any incumbent City Councilmember or http://mapgis.oaklandnet.com/councildistricts/ OUSD board member from the district he or she was elected or call (510)444-CITY(2489).
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland City Council Candidate Questionnaire Thank You for Taking the Time to Complete the Oaklandside’S 2020 Election Questionnaire
    Gibson McElhaney Oakland City Council candidate questionnaire Thank you for taking the time to complete The Oaklandside’s 2020 election questionnaire. We understand we’re asking a lot of you and your time, but we feel that Oakland voters deserve to know as much as possible about each candidate’s views on major issues like housing affordability, homelessness, public safety, and more. We will be posting your answers to these questions on our website for our readers to see, and noting whether candidates chose not to respond. We are not endorsing anyone for office. We’d like to receive your answers by August 28. Please briefly answer each question below using no more than 200 words. Please be as specific as possible when discussing policy ideas ​ ​ or positions you’ve taken, or would take, on different issues. Our reporters will also follow up with you for a phone or Zoom interview at some point. Your name: Lynette Gibson McElhaney ​ City Council district seat you are running for: Oakland District 3 ​ We want to know more about you and the reasons you’re running for council: 1. Please list your age, education, any professional licenses or other relevant credentials, your current occupation, and your neighborhood of residence. Age: 52 Education: BA in Political Science from University of California Berkeley I am the current City Councilmember for District 3. I live in West Oakland. 2. Before running for City Council, how were you involved in local government? Have you served on any local boards or commissions? Prior to running for Council my involvement with local government was only as a taxpayer.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Candidates
    Oakland Youth Commission CITY OF OAKLAND 2014 GUIDE Voter Election Guide Ranked Choice OAKLAND, CA ELECTION NOVEMBER 4T H Voting Mayoral Youth Commission Candidates City Council 2014 Voter Guide Candidates OUSD School Board Candi- dates Mayoral Candidates 2014 Ken Houston Ballot Bryan Parker Measures Charles Williams Recommen- Hon. Libby Schaaf dations Hon. Courtney Ruby Proposition Mayor Jean Quan Recommen- dations Hon . Dan Siegal Nancy Sidebotham Eric Wilson Patrick McMcullough CONTENTS Jason Anderson Peter Y. Liu Joe Tuman Guides 3 Hon. Rebecca Kaplan Contents Saied Karamooz Ranked 4 Choice Voting Measures 6 and Propositions City Council Candidates District 2 District 4 District 6 Mayoral 12 Candidates Hon. Abel Guillen Hon. Annie Campbell Hon. Desley Brooks Andrew Park Washington James Moore City Council 26 Dana King Jill Broadhurst Michael Johnson Candidates Ken Maxey Paul Lim Shereda Nosakhare School Board 41 Kevin Blackburn Candidates Oakland Youth Commission 2014 Voter Election Guide OAKLAND, CA ELECTION NOVEMBER 4T H Youth Commission 2014 Voter Guide Oakland Ballot Measures Measure N Measure DD Measure Z Measure EE Measure CC Measure FF Alameda County Measure BB School Board Candidates District 2 District 4 District 6 Aimee Eng Hon. Annie Campbell Hon. Desley Brooks William Ghirardelli Washington James Moore Jill Broadhurst Michael Johnson Paul Lim Shereda Nosakhare P A G E 3 Youth Commission Voter Guide 2014 October October 2014, Dear Oakland Residents, The Youth Commission would like to present this voter guide to you in an effort to inform youth and youth advocates about the candidates and the Oakland Youth electoral process in this election. The Youth Commission would like to Commission thank all candidates who forwarded responses to our questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland City Council
    OFRCE OF" TH£ CITY CURK OAKLAND 13 JUN 13 PM |:U6 ty Attorney's Office OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL Resolution No. C.M.S. INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBERS LIBBY SCHAAF & DESLEY BROOKS A RESOLUTION DECLARING MONDAYS TO BE "MEATLESS MONDAYS" IN THE CITY OF OAKLAND WHEREAS, the City of Oakland is dedicated to the preservation of the environment and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Oakland is committed to the well-being and good health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, in 2011, Oakland passed a landmark Energy and Climate Action Plan with the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the United Nations recognizes that "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems" and recommended individuals "replace meat with another source of protein" as a way to celebrate its World Water Day; and WHEREAS, recent studies and reports have demonstrated that we can lower our carbon footprint simply by reducing the amount of animal-based foods we eat; and WHEREAS, 42 percent of children in Oakland are ovenweight or obese and studies show that obese children tend to grow up to be obese adults, and those who are obese are at increased risk of developing many chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, and many types of cancer; and WHEREAS, the economic costs associated with obesity in Alameda County are estimated at $1 billion; and WHEREAS, the American Dietetic Association recognizes that reduced meat consumption decreases the risk of various health
    [Show full text]
  • Black Panther Party: 1966-1982
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication 1-1-2000 Black Panther Party: 1966-1982 Michael X. Delli Carpini University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers Part of the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation (OVERRIDE) Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Black panther party: 1966-1982. In I. Ness & J. Ciment (Eds.), The encyclopedia of third parties in America (pp. 190-197). Armonke, NY: Sharpe Reference. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/1 NOTE: At the time of publication, the author Michael X. Delli Carpini was affiliated with Columbia University. Currently January 2008, he is a faculty member of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/1 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Black Panther Party: 1966-1982 Abstract The Black Panther party was founded in Oakland, California, in 1966. From its beginnings as a local, community organization with a handful of members, it expanded into a national and international party. By 1980, however, the Black Panther party was once again mainly an Oakland-based organization, with no more than fifty active members. In 1982, the party came to an official end. Despite itselativ r ely short history, its modest membership, and its general eschewing of electoral politics, the Black Panther party was arguably the best known and most controversial of the black militant political organizations of the 1960s, with a legacy that continues to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Law in the Service of the Public
    OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Annual Report FISCAL YEAR 2018-2019 juslaw in thepro service ofpopulo the public Table of Contents Message from City Attorney Barbara J. Parker ............................................................1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................2 Mission of the City Attorney’s Office .............................................................................3 Office Profile .....................................................................................................................5 Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................6 Financial Trends ...............................................................................................................8 Outside Counsel Costs ....................................................................................................9 Payments .........................................................................................................................12 Dollars Secured by City Attorney .................................................................................18 Divisions of the City Attorney’s Office .........................................................................23 Affirmative Litigation, Innovation & Enforcement Division ........................................32 Labor & Employment Division .......................................................................................39
    [Show full text]
  • A Downtown for Everyone Robert A
    REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 A DOWNTOWN Shaping the future of FOR downtown Oakland EVERYONE Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary SPUR staff Egon Terplan, Project lead 6 Introduction Mohit Shewaramani, Oakland Fellow 9 How We Got Here Sarah Jo Szambelan, Research Manager Robert Ogilvie, Oakland Director 12 Today’s Opportunities and Challenges SPUR Oakland City Board 20 Our Vision: A Downtown for Everyone Robert A. Wilkins (project co-chair) Bill Stotler (project co-chair) 24 BIG IDEA 1 Tomiquia Moss (board chair) Grow 50,000 more jobs in downtown and create pathways to get Fred Blackwell people into them. Deborah Boyer 33 BIG IDEA 2 Anagha Dandekar Clifford Jose Corona Bring 25,000 more residents to downtown at a range of incomes, and Charmaine Curtis enable existing residents to remain. Paul Figueroa 37 BIG IDEA 3 Mike Ghielmetti Set clear and consistent rules for growth to make downtown a better Spencer Gillette place for everyone. Chris Iglesias Robert Joseph 44 BIG IDEA 4 Ken Lowney Create inviting public spaces and streets as part of an active public Christopher Lytle realm. Olis Simmons Joshua Simon 54 BIG IDEA 5 Resources and reviewers Make it easy to get to and around downtown through an expanded Anyka Barber, Alex Boyd, Anthony Bruzzone, Clarissa transportation network. Cabansagan, Dave Campbell, Jim Cunradi, John Dolby, 63 Big Ideas for the Future Margo Dunlap, Karen Engel, Sarah Filley, Rachel Flynn, Erin Ferguson, Sarah Fine, Aliza Gallo, Jennie Gerard, June 66 Plan of Action Grant, Savlan Hauser, Linda Hausrath, Zakiya Harris,
    [Show full text]
  • Oakland Permanent Access to Housing Strategy (Path)
    OAKLAND PERMANENT ACCESS TO HOUSING STRATEGY (PATH) A Companion to EveryOne Home: The Alameda Countywide Homeless and Special Needs Housing Plan Written and Prepared By Debbie Greiff, Debbie Greiff Consulting Kate Bristol, Kate Bristol Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 II. Background on PATH and EveryOne Home.......................................................... 1 III. The Challenge: Homelessness in Oakland............................................................ 3 A. Oakland’s Homeless and At­Risk Population ....................................................... 3 B. Housing Needs of Homeless and At­Risk People................................................. 5 IV. The Plan: Permanent Access to Housing Strategy.............................................. 7 A. Desired Results .................................................................................................... 7 B. Resources Needed to Realize Results................................................................. 8 C. Taking Action to Realize Results........................................................................ 10 Goal (P): Prevent Homelessness and Other Housing Crises ............................. 10 Goal (H): Increase Housing Opportunities for Targeted Populations.................. 13 Goal (S): Deliver Flexible Services to Support Stability and Independence ...... 16 Goal (M): Measure Success and Report Outcomes ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Report: Oakland International Airport Bart Connector
    MTI Working Paper Research Project 2503 Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access CASE STUDY REPORT: OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BART CONNECTOR Geoffrey D. Gosling, Ph.D. Wenbin Wei, Ph.D. Dennis Freeman May 2012 A publication of Mineta Transportation Institute Created by Congress in 1991 College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 ii Mineta Transportation Institute iii Copyright © 2012 by Mineta Transportation Institute All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2012938608 To order this publication, please contact: Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business San José State University San José, CA 95192-0219 Tel: (408) 924-7560 Fax: (408) 924-7565 Email: [email protected] transweb.sjsu.edu Mineta Transportation Institute iv Mineta Transportation Institute v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The case study documented in this report has been prepared as part of the Mineta Transportation Institute Research Project Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access. The objectives of the research project include examining and documenting past experience with collaborative funding of airport ground access projects and the use of different funding sources to facilitate interconnectivity between transportation modes in order to improve airport ground access. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the sponsors of the research, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI). The authors also thank MTI staff, including deputy executive director and research director Karen Philbrick, Ph.D.; director of communications and technology transfer Donna Maurillo; student research support assistant Joey Mercado; student publications assistant Sahil Rahimi; and webmaster Frances Cherman, who also provided editorial support.
    [Show full text]
  • Term Sheet 7.20.21
    Attachment 1 STAFF’S PROPOSED NON-BINDING TERMS DRAFT ONLY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATION AND CHANGE 1. Parties & Intent This non-binding term sheet (“Term Sheet”) sets forth the preliminary terms upon which the Athletics Investment Group LLC d/b/a The Oakland Athletics, a California limited liability company (or an affiliate thereof) (the “Oakland A’s” or “Developer”) and the City of Oakland (the “City”) would negotiate and draft a Development Agreement for a mixed-use ballpark development project, as described herein, to be presented to the City Council for consideration, subject to requisite environmental review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Developer is proposing to acquire the rights to develop a site known as the Charles P. Howard Terminal (“Howard Terminal”) on the Oakland waterfront from the Port of Oakland (“Port”), acquire certain adjacent properties from private owners, and construct a new Major League Baseball ballpark, as well as residential, entertainment, office, hotel, and retail (mixed use) development, creating a new Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District (the “Project”). The proposed Project would be constructed in phases as described below. The site proposed for development of the Project includes the Howard Terminal and certain adjacent properties totaling approximately 55 acres (collectively, the “Project Site”). The Project Site is located on the Oakland waterfront, north of and across the Oakland-Alameda Estuary from the City of Alameda. A location map and aerial photographs of the Project Site and the surrounding vicinity are provided on Exhibit A attached hereto. The City and Developer desire to enter into a Development Agreement to secure benefits for the City of Oakland and its residents, which are not achievable through the regulatory process, as well as to vest in Developer and its successors and assigns certain entitlement rights with respect to the Project Site.
    [Show full text]
  • 140010000 City of Oakland General Obligation Bonds (Measure KK
    NEW ISSUE, BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s: Aa1 Standard & Poor’s: AA (See “RATINGS” herein.) In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the City, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Series 2020B-1 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and interest on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Series 2020B-1 Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Interest on the Series 2020B-2 Bonds and the Refunding Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $140,010,000 $44,880,000 $64,260,000 City of Oakland City of Oakland City of Oakland General Obligation Bonds General Obligation Bonds General Obligation (Measure KK, Series 2020B-1) (Measure KK, Series 2020B-2) Refunding Bonds, (Tax-Exempt) (Taxable) Series 2020 (Taxable) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: January 15, as shown on the inside cover hereof The $140,010,000 aggregate principal amount of City of Oakland
    [Show full text]